Evolution of a chronic pain management program in a Northwestern Ontario community: from structural elements to practical application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a highly prevalent health problem especially in rural regions. There is a dearth of comprehensive pain management programs particularly in rural areas. AIM: The objectives of this paper are to describe the evolution of an interprofessional chronic pain team employing a patient-centered model of care with a biopsychosocial approach, and health services metrics. METHOD: This descriptive case study approach includes an overview of the Chronic Pain Management Program (CPMP) services at St. Joseph Care Group in Thunder Bay, NW Ontario; the process involved in the development of an interprofessional chronic pain team employing a patient-centered model of care with a biopsychosocial approach; and metrics of the program's operations. RESULTS: Established in 1998, CPMP has evolved to become inter-professional, providing consultations and management, with partial funding by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long term Care that has allowed expansion of services. The CPMP currently provides three distinct program streams as follows: a) Intensive 6-week, four half-days/week, outpatient program that offers an interdisciplinary team approach in groups and individual format; b) PACE-IT (Pain Assessment Collaborative Education Inter-professional Therapy), 8-week long, half-day/ week, interprofessional treatment program, in person; and c) Individual format for one-on-one services for patients not fitting in either the 6-Week or PACE-IT programs. In addition, Additional services provide virtual consultations and didactic videoteleconference sessions on opioid stewardship and pain management to health providers. Health services outcomes, research, and educational opportunities across the Northwestern Ontario Region, challenges and future needs are discussed. CONCLUSION: The CPMP's model of care can serve as a foundation for expert chronic pain care delivery across rural Canada, and as template for similar institutionally-based and publicly funded pain clinics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".